High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/6834/2017allowed

Kartar Singh v. Manju And ANR

2017-10-04Mr Justice Rajiv Sharma2 pages

Civil Revision No. 6834 of 2017 -1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6834 of 2017 Date of Decision: 04.10.2017 Kartar Singh ......Petitioner

Versus

Manju and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present:

Mr. Gautam Kaile, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** ANITA CHAUDHRY, J The petitioner has assailed the order dated 1.8.2017 (Annexure P-4) whereby his defence was struck off by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonipat. The plaintiff seeks one last opportunity to file the written statement.

Heard.

The zimni orders have been perused. It is extremely painful to note the manner in which the trial is proceedings. The suit had been filed by the plaintiffs in August 2012. The defendant put in appearance in August 2012 and the case was adjourned twice to file the written statement. The defendant failed to file the written statement and instead filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The case remained posted for reply and thereafter for consideration on the application from September 2012 till March 2017. The application was disposed of on 25.4.2017 and the application was dismissed. The trial Court adjourned the matter for filing Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2017.10.06 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Civil Revision No. 6834 of 2017 -2the written statement. The trial Court still allowed more time to the defendant to file written statement.

The petitioner has not placed on record the jimni order which was passed in May 2017. It is the subsequent order which has been placed on record. Even after the adjournments the defendant failed to file the written statement and his defence was struck off. The case was posted for evidence of the plaintiff for 22.8.2017. The counsel for the petitioner admits that the trial Court had given sufficient time and the defendant has failed to file the written statement but seeks one opportunity. He states that they will not delay the trial further.

Notice is not being issued to the respondents as it would further delay the proceedings. It is unfortunate that the counsel for both the parties were seeking adjournments for arguments on the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for three years. The defendant should have filed the written statement soon after the disposal of the application. The trial Court was benevolent when it accommodated the defendant and granted more time. The case has not proceeded much, I would allow one opportunity to the petitioner to file his written statement but on payment of Rs. 20,000/- which would be paid to the other side. The written statement would be filed within 10 days from today and deposit of the amount would be a condition precedent.

The petition is allowed accordingly.

(ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE October 04, 2017 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2017.10.06 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh